SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gains exempted under section 10 (38). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of investigation made by the SEBI

M/S LUDHIANA LEASING PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain for the purpose of section 115JB. The relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bangalore Bench is reproduced as under: “16. Clause (ii) to Explanation to section 115JB lays down that the amount of income to which provisions of section 10, other than provisions of sub-section (38

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of Rs.6065724/- which is\notherwise not liable to tax under section 10(38) are bogus and no\n\nmaterial

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

38. The learned DR further placed reliance on section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, which defines “income”, and section 2(28A), which defines “interest”, to contend that the statutory definition squarely encompasses any interest received pursuant to a claim, and hence such receipt constitutes income. Having referred to the definition clause, the learned DR drew attention to section

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 7,91,34,944/- arising from the sale of these shares during the year as exempt under section 10(38